spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note"

2005-05-11 13:48:54
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Julian 
Mehnle
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:36 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Clarification on "RFC Editor Note"


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Scott Kitterman wrote:
Perhaps we just need to believe that what MS is doing is in fact an
"experiment".  If it's just a science fair that won't be used in
production, who cares.  Perhaps we say "NOT RECOMMENDED for production
use" instead of just "NOT RECOMMENDED".  Then if someone checks PRA
against an SPF version 1 record in a production environment, it's very
clear where the fault lies, but no one can complain that we're
preventing their "experiment".

Without wanting to sound clever, _they_ are preventing their experiment.  
If I say "I want to do an experiment where all participants may assume red 
traffic lights to be yellow ones, and yellow ones to be green ones, oh, 
and every communal government that doesn't like this should mount warning 
signs to their lights", I shouldn't be surprised if a lot of people see to 
it that my experiment never takes off.

Yes.  I agree.  I just want an SPF Classic RFC that we can all live with.  It's 
clear that from an SPF community perspective NOT RECOMMENDED has got to stay. 
So if they're worried about an experiment, let's throw them a bone to get our 
RFC without compromising the core of what we're worried about when we say NOT 
RECOMMENDED.

Once again, whatever, in the end, the Council decides, I'm still behind you 
guys.

Scott K